Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T22:34:27.459Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lawyer's Ranking From A Constitutional Perspective: The Federal Constitutional Court's JUVE-Handbook Decision

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Kristofer Bott

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In November, 2000, the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) surprised the public by holding that the publisher's freedom of expression and press secured by Article 5 of the Grundgesetz (Basic Law) could be violated if the publication of advertisements was prohibited, provided the advertisement is included in the scope of protection itself. At that time shocking advertisements were being heavily discussed in the public. This public debate had been sparked, in part, by the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) decision prohibiting Stern Magazine's publication of advertisements containing repulsive pictures on behalf of the fashion and lifestyle brand Benetton. The magazine complained to the Federal Court of Justice against this judgment, an appeal that generated the dictum quoted above. In November, 2002, the Federal Constitutional Court had another opportunity to characterize the importance of the freedom of expression and the press in competition law, particularly in the context of the publishing industry.

Type
Private Law
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , 01 March 2003 , pp. 237 - 245
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Benetton I case, BVerfGE 102, 347. See, Ban on Benetton “Shock Ads” Argued Before Federal Constitutional Court, 1 German Law Journal No. 3 (15 November 2000), http://www.germanlawjournal.com; Federal Constitutional Court Rejects Ban on Benetton “Shock” Ads: Free Expression, Fair Competition and the Opaque Boundaries Between Political Message and Social Moral Standards, 2 German Law Journal No. 1 (15 January 2001), http://www.germanlawjournal.com.Google Scholar

2 Benetton I case, decisions of the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH – Federal Court of Justice), I ZR 180/94 and I ZR 110/93 from 6 July 1995.Google Scholar

3 See, note 1, infra.Google Scholar

4 JUVE Handbook case, decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court), 1 BvR 580/02 from 7 November 2002, http://www.bverfg.de.Google Scholar

5 Information about the JUVE Handbook is available at the publisher's website:http://www.juve.de/html/us.html.Google Scholar

6 Decision of the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) München, 29 U 4292/00 from 8 February 2001. Also published at 2001 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) p. 1950.Google Scholar

7 Decision of the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH – Federal Court of Justice), I ZR 155/01 from 21 February 2002.Google Scholar

8 Information about JUVE's Rechtsmarkt journal is available at the publisher's website:http://www.juve.de/html/ze_rm.html.Google Scholar

9 See, http://www.legalweek.net/.Google Scholar

10 See, http://www.americanlawyer.com/.Google Scholar

11 Decision of the Landgericht (Regional Court) Muenchen from 20 June 2000. Published at 2000 Zeitschrift fuer Wirtschaftsrecht (ZIP) p. 1593.Google Scholar

12 See, note 5, infra.Google Scholar

13 Id.Google Scholar

14 Id.Google Scholar

15 Id.Google Scholar

16 Id.Google Scholar

17 Id.Google Scholar

18 Id.Google Scholar

19 See, note 6, infra.Google Scholar

20 See, Best I (Physicians) case, decision of the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH – Federal Court of Justice), I ZR 154/95 from 30 April 1997; Best II (Lawyers) case, decision of the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH – Federal Court of Justice), I ZR 196/94 from 30 April 1997. In German the cases are known as “Die Besten I” and “Die Besten II.” Also published at 1997 Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (GRUR) pp. 912 and 914.Google Scholar

21 See, note 6, infra.Google Scholar

22 See, note 4, infra.Google Scholar

23 See, note 1, infra.Google Scholar

24 Benetton II case, decision of the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH – Federal Court of Justice), I ZR 284/00 from 6 December December 2001. Also published at 2002 NJW p. 1200.Google Scholar

25 See, note 4, infra.Google Scholar

26 Art. 5, para. 2 of the Basic Law.Google Scholar

27 For current reform efforts by the Federal Ministry of Justice, see the internal draft of 1 January 2003 at http://www.bmj.bund.de/images/11548.pdf.Google Scholar

28 See, note 1, infra.Google Scholar

29 Id.Google Scholar

30 See, note 4, infra.Google Scholar

31 See, note 4, infra. See, also, note 6, infra.Google Scholar

32 See, note 4, infra.Google Scholar

33 See, note 4, infra.Google Scholar

34 See, note 4, infra.Google Scholar

35 See, note 4, infra.Google Scholar

36 See, note 6, infra. Citing, BestI/II cases, see, note 19, infra (“The general public has no interest in having such incorrect information [on physicians/lawyers].”).Google Scholar

37 BVerfGE 65, 1 (40 et. seq.)Google Scholar

38 See, note 4, infra.Google Scholar

39 See, note 6, infra.Google Scholar

40 Id.Google Scholar

41 See, note 19, infra.Google Scholar

42 But see, Köhler/Piper, UWG-Kommentar, Introduction Margin No. 210 and § 13 Margin No. 15 (3rd Edition 2002).Google Scholar

43 See, note 19, infra.Google Scholar

44 ECJ C-210/96 ‘Gut Springenheide'.Google Scholar